Search

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease associated with disability and premature death. Up-to-date estimates of the burden of rheumatoid arthritis are required for health-care planning, resource allocation, and prevention. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, we provide updated estimates of the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis and its associated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) by age, sex, year, and location, with forecasted prevalence to 2050. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis prevalence was estimated in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 using Bayesian meta-regression models and data from population-based studies and medical claims data (98 prevalence and 25 incidence studies). Mortality was estimated from vital registration data with the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm). Years of life lost (YLL) were calculated with use of standard GBD lifetables, and years lived with disability (YLDs) were estimated from prevalence, a meta-analysed distribution of rheumatoid arthritis severity, and disability weights. DALYs were calculated by summing YLLs and YLDs. Smoking was the only risk factor analysed. Rheumatoid arthritis prevalence was forecast to 2050 by logistic regression with Socio-Demographic Index as a predictor, then multiplying by projected population estimates. Findings: In 2020, an estimated 17·6 million (95% uncertainty interval 15·8–20·3) people had rheumatoid arthritis worldwide. The age-standardised global prevalence rate was 208·8 cases (186·8–241·1) per 100 000 population, representing a 14·1% (12·7–15·4) increase since 1990. Prevalence was higher in females (age-standardised female-to-male prevalence ratio 2·45 [2·40–2·47]). The age-standardised death rate was 0·47 (0·41–0·54) per 100 000 population (38 300 global deaths [33 500–44 000]), a 23·8% (17·5–29·3) decrease from 1990 to 2020. The 2020 DALY count was 3 060 000 (2 320 000–3

INTRODUCTION: Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health. METHODS: Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions. RESULTS: Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening. CONCLUSION: An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeh

Introduction: Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health. Methods: Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design. Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response. Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci. Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions. Results: Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action. Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model. Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening. Conclusion: An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multis

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disorder with a global prevalence of approximately 0.5-1%. Patients with RA are at an increased risk of developing comorbidities (eg, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes and depression). Despite this, there are limited recommendations for the management and implementation of associated comorbidities. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions in the care of RA and associated comorbidities. Methods: A combination of primary research (180+ interviews with specialists across 12 European rheumatology centres) and secondary research (literature review of existing publications and guidelines/recommendations) were used to identify challenges in management and corresponding good practice interventions. Findings were prioritised and reviewed by a group of 18 rheumatology experts including rheumatologists, comorbidity experts, a patient representative and a highly specialised nurse. Results: Challenges throughout the patient pathway (including delays in diagnosis and referral, shortage of rheumatologists, limited awareness of primary care professionals) and 18 good practice interventions were identified in the study. The expert group segmented and prioritised interventions according to three distinct stages of the disease: (1) suspected RA, (2) recent diagnosis of RA and (3) established RA. Examples of good practice interventions included enabling self-management (self-monitoring and disease management support, for example, lifestyle adaptations); early arthritis clinic; rapid access to care (online referral, triage, ultrasound-guided diagnosis); dedicated comorbidity specialists; enhanced communication with primary care (hotline, education sessions); and integrating patient registries into daily clinical practice. Conclusion: Learning from implementation of good practice interventions in centres across Europe provides an opportunity to more widel

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. © 2015 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & European League Against Rheumatism., Funding by EULAR (grant CLI079).

Contains fulltext : 137860.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one b

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6months (or improvement not seen at 3months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDM

Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion.